bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2019‒04‒07
thirty-one papers selected by
Thomas Krichel
Open Library Society
  1. The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications.
  2. Plagiarism in Predatory Publications: A Comparative Study of Three Nursing Journals.
  3. Open access, at what costs?
  4. "Coercive induced citation": A concealed publication misconduct.
  5. The peer review process.
  6. Revisiting the Term Predatory Open Access Publishing.
  7. Pathophysiology of a scientific paper.
  8. Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability.
  9. Valuable Research in Fake Journals and Self-boasting with Fake Metrics.
  10. Publishing Open, Reproducible Research With Undergraduates.
  11. An Author "Under Attack": The Case of Publishers Soliciting Dental Manuscripts.
  12. Solicitation for article submission by electronic journals.
  13. When Public Discourse Mirrors Academic Debate: Research Integrity in the Media.
  14. Reporting quality of the Delphi technique in reporting guidelines: a protocol for a systematic analysis of the EQUATOR Network Library.
  15. The STROBE guidelines.
  16. Disagreements in risk of bias assessment for randomised controlled trials included in more than one Cochrane systematic reviews: a research on research study using cross-sectional design.
  17. Changing trends in otorhinolaryngology publishing.
  18. Restoring Dignity in Academic Publishing Is a Collective Duty.
  19. [We Are All 3868].
  20. Acta Physiologica announces: publishing for nothing, open access for free for all German authors!
  21. Principles and Ethics of Authorship.
  22. [Summary to second working meeting of the fifteenth editorial board of Chinese Journal of Pediatrics].
  23. A Vibrant Community of Readers, Authors and Reviewers: A Medical Editors' Necessity and a Challenge for Medical Education.
  24. Editorial: What is authorship?
  25. Potential benefit and harm of social media and predatory publishing: a commentary on "Antibiotic-treated acute appendicitis-reception in social media".
  26. Increasing Students' Publication Productivity: Could Launching a University Scientific Journal be a Catalyst?
  27. How to choose a journal and write a cover letter.
  28. WASP (write a scientific paper): The ethical stages of publishing a research paper.
  29. Developing Skills That Serve Our Journal, Your Colleagues as Potential Authors, and You.
  30. How to write introduction and discussion.
  31. Writing the title and abstract for a research paper: Being concise, precise, and meticulous is the key.
  1. Scientometrics. 2019 ;118(1): 339-373
    The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications.
    S P J M Horbach, W Halffman.
      There is a mounting worry about erroneous and outright fraudulent research that gets published in the scientific literature. Although peer review's ability to filter out such publications is contentious, several peer review innovations attempt to do just that. However, there is very little systematic evidence documenting the ability of different review procedures to flag problematic publications. In this article, we use survey data on peer review in a wide range of journals to compare the retraction rates of specific review procedures, using the Retraction Watch database. We were able to identify which peer review procedures were used since 2000 for 361 journals, publishing a total of 833,172 articles, of which 670 were retracted. After addressing the dual character of retractions, signalling both a failure to identify problems prior to publication, but also the willingness to correct mistakes, we empirically assess review procedures. With considerable conceptual caveats, we were able to identify peer review procedures that seem able to detect problematic research better than others. Results were verified for disciplinary differences and variation between reasons for retraction. This leads to informed recommendations for journal editors about strengths and weaknesses of specific peer review procedures, allowing them to select review procedures that address issues most relevant to their field.
    Keywords:  Peer review; Research integrity; Retractions; Scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2969-2
  2. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2019 Apr 05.
    Plagiarism in Predatory Publications: A Comparative Study of Three Nursing Journals.
    Jacqueline K Owens, Leslie H Nicoll.
      PURPOSE: This study compared three known predatory nursing journals to determine the percentage of content among them that was plagiarized or duplicated. A serendipitous finding of several instances of plagiarism via duplicate publications during the random analysis of articles in a study examining the quality of articles published in predatory journals prompted this investigation.DESIGN: The study utilized a descriptive, comparative design. All articles in each journal (n = 296 articles) from inception (volume 1, number 1) through May 1, 2017, were analyzed.
    METHODS: Each article was evaluated and scored electronically for similarity using an electronic plagiarism detection tool. Articles were then individually reviewed, and exact and near exact matches (90% or greater plagiarized content) were paired. Articles with less than 70% plagiarized scores were randomly sampled, and an in-depth search for matches of partial content in other journals was conducted. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data.
    FINDINGS: The extent and direction of duplication from one given journal to another was established. Changes made in subsequent publications, as a potential distraction to identify plagiarism, were also identified. There were 100 (68%) exact and near exact matches in the paired articles. The time lapse between the original and duplicate publication ranged from 0 to 63 months, with a mean of 27.2 months (SD =19.68). Authors were from 26 countries, including Africa, the United States, Turkey, and Iran. Articles with similarity scores in the range of 20% to 70% included possible similarities in content or research plagiarism, but not to the extent of the exact or near exact matches. The majority of the articles (n = 94) went from Journal A or C to Journal B, although four articles were first published in Journal B and then Journal A.
    CONCLUSIONS: This study found a substantial level of plagiarism via duplicate publications in the three analyzed predatory journals, further diluting credible scientific literature and risking the ability to synthesize evidence accurately to inform practice. Editors should continue to use electronic plagiarism detection tools. Education about publishing misconduct for editors and authors is a high priority.
    CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Both contributors and consumers of nursing literature rely on integrity in publication. Authors expect appropriate credit for their scholarly contributions without unethical and unauthorized duplication of their work. Readers expect current information from original authors, upon which they can make informed practice decisions.
    Keywords:  Duplicate publication; nursing journal; plagiarism; predatory; scholarly writing; unethical publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12475
  3. Int J Clin Pharm. 2019 Apr 01.
    Open access, at what costs?
    J W Foppe van Mil.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-019-00806-6
  4. J Eval Clin Pract. 2019 Apr 02.
    "Coercive induced citation": A concealed publication misconduct.
    Behnam Shakiba, Shirin Irani.
      
    Keywords:  evidence-based medicine; medical ethics; medical research
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13133
  5. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019 Apr;13(Suppl 1): S52-S58
    The peer review process.
    Dmitry Tumin, Joseph Drew Tobias.
      The peer review process provides a foundation for the credibility of scientific findings in medicine. The following article discusses the history of peer review in scientific and medical journals, the process for the selection of peer reviewers, and how journal editors arrive at a decision on submitted manuscripts. To aid authors who are invited to revise their manuscripts for further consideration, we outline steps for considering reviewer comments and provide suggestions for organizing the author's response to reviewers. We also examine ethical issues in peer review and provide recommendations for authors interested in becoming peer reviewers themselves.
    Keywords:  Manuscript review process; manuscript submission; peer review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_544_18
  6. J Korean Med Sci. 2019 Apr 08. 34(13): e99
    Revisiting the Term Predatory Open Access Publishing.
    Aamir Raoof Memon.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e99
  7. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019 Apr;13(Suppl 1): S9-S11
    Pathophysiology of a scientific paper.
    Sultan Ayoub Meo, Abdelazeem A Eldawlatly.
      Scientific paper writing for science journals is highly adroit, competitive, and laborious process. Scientific writing has a constant design, which is confounding for apprentice science writers. The huge amount of impediments is associated with scientific writing which may be reduced by applying some practices and guidelines. The basic structure of scientific articles mainly comprises of the title, abstract, keywords, introduction, methods, results, discussion, conclusion, acknowledgments, and references. The pathophysiological aspects which minimize the chances of publication of an academic paper are rarely discussed in the literature. Early career of physicians and researchers is not well acquainted with the components of scientific paper. This study established an approach to understand the basic characteristics of pathophysiology of scientific writing.
    Keywords:  Pathophysiology; science and technology; scientific writing; writing tips
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_48_19
  8. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Apr 05. 19(1): 76
    Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability.
    Andrija Babic, Ruzica Tokalic, João Amílcar Silva Cunha, Ivana Novak, Jelena Suto, Marin Vidak, Ivana Miosic, Ivana Vuka, Tina Poklepovic Pericic, Livia Puljak.
      BACKGROUND: An important part of the systematic review methodology is appraisal of the risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane systematic reviews are considered golden standard regarding systematic review methodology, but Cochrane's instructions for assessing risk of attrition bias are vague, which may lead to inconsistencies in authors' assessments. The aim of this study was to analyze consistency of judgments and support for judgments of attrition bias in Cochrane reviews of interventions published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR).METHODS: We analyzed Cochrane reviews published from July 2015 to June 2016 in the CDSR. We extracted data on number of included trials, judgment of attrition risk of bias for each included trial (low, unclear or high) and accompanying support for the judgment (supporting explanation). We also assessed how many Cochrane reviews had different judgments for the same supporting explanations.
    RESULTS: In the main analysis we included 10,292 judgments and supporting explanations for attrition bias from 729 Cochrane reviews. We categorized supporting explanations for those judgments into four categories and we found that most of the supporting explanations were unclear. Numerical indicators for percent of attrition, as well as statistics related to attrition were judged very differently. One third of Cochrane review authors had more than one category of supporting explanation; some had up to four different categories. Inconsistencies were found even with the number of judgments, names of risk of bias domains and different judgments for the same supporting explanations in the same Cochrane review.
    CONCLUSION: We found very high inconsistency in methods of appraising risk of attrition bias in recent Cochrane reviews. Systematic review authors need clear guidance about different categories they should assess and judgments for those explanations. Clear instructions about appraising risk of attrition bias will improve reliability of the Cochrane's risk of bias tool, help authors in making decisions about risk of bias and help in making reliable decisions in healthcare.
    Keywords:  Attrition bias; Cochrane; Incomplete data; Inconsistency; Missing data; Systematic review
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0717-9
  9. J Pediatr Neurosci. 2018 Oct-Dec;13(4):13(4): 517-518
    Valuable Research in Fake Journals and Self-boasting with Fake Metrics.
    Asir John Samuel, Vevita Priya Aranha.
      Valuable research works are getting wasted by publishing them in so called, fake journals (pseudo journals, hijacked or predatory journals). Fake journals are the journals which do not perform peer review or minimal language editing in the name of peer review. Unaware of negative consequences of publishing in fake journals, budding or novice academician/clinician/researcher continue to fall prey for them. Present scenario, forced them to get their valuable research published for promotion, pay hike, academic or research reputation, etc. But, they boast themselves by publishing them in fake journals with fake metrics. By making publication in fake journals, only the publishers make profit and pseudo enhance the bio-data of novice academician. It is becoming a big business. In this short communication, we have highlighted the most common prevalent issue among the novice or budding academician.
    Keywords:  Fake journal; genuine publication; hijacked journal; predatory journals; predatory publishers; pseudo publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/JPN.JPN_66_18
  10. Front Psychol. 2019 ;10 564
    Publishing Open, Reproducible Research With Undergraduates.
    Julia F Strand, Violet A Brown.
      
    Keywords:  open science; pre-registration; replicability; training; undergraduate
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00564
  11. JDR Clin Trans Res. 2019 Jan;4(1): 96-98
    An Author "Under Attack": The Case of Publishers Soliciting Dental Manuscripts.
    C M Faggion.
      
    Keywords:  conflict of interest; dentistry; ethics; peer review; publications; publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/2380084418815145
  12. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2018 Oct;31(4): 443-446
    Solicitation for article submission by electronic journals.
    Somedeb Ball, Jonathan Kopel, Robert Alexander, Kenneth Nugent.
      The business model, editorial policies, and content quality vary significantly in online medical journals. Some online journals have been labeled as predatory journals because their main effort involves collecting article processing charges with little interest in content, peer review, or manuscript presentation. Some of these journals send frequent email solicitations for submissions. One author affiliated with a department of internal medicine collected all email requests for submissions to online journals over a 6-month period. These emails included 210 unique journal names that covered over 40 medical fields and requested 15 different article types. Most of these journals were not listed in PubMed or the Directory of Open Access Journals. One hundred and eighty two were on Beall's list of predatory journals. The median article processing charge was $1035. Faculty and trainees at medical schools receive multiple requests for submissions, but it is difficult to determine the quality of the journal sending these requests. At a minimum, a journal should be listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals and have very clear editorial and publication policies.
    Keywords:  Internet; medical journals; open access; publication costs; scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2018.1498725
  13. Sci Eng Ethics. 2019 Apr 03.
    When Public Discourse Mirrors Academic Debate: Research Integrity in the Media.
    Ilaria Ampollini, Massimiano Bucchi.
      Most studies of research integrity in the general media focus on the coverage of specific cases of misconduct. This paper tries to provide a more general, long-term perspective by analysing media discourse about research integrity and related themes in the Italian and United Kingdom daily press from 2000 to 2016. The results, based on a corpus of 853 articles, show that media coverage largely mirrors debates about integrity and misconduct. In fact, salient themes in the news include the importance to overcome the so-called "rotten apple" paradigm; the key role of public trust in science; and the need to address flaws in the peer-review system.
    Keywords:  Daily press; Media analysis; Research integrity; Science communication; Scientific misconduct
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00103-5
  14. BMJ Open. 2019 Apr 03. 9(4): e024942
    Reporting quality of the Delphi technique in reporting guidelines: a protocol for a systematic analysis of the EQUATOR Network Library.
    Masahiro Banno, Yasushi Tsujimoto, Yuki Kataoka.
      INTRODUCTION: Reporting guidelines are important tools for improving the quality of medical research. The Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network's Library contains a comprehensive and up-to-date database of reporting guidelines relevant to health research. Only 31% of reporting guidelines published from 2010 to 2014 reported using the Delphi technique, and the reporting quality of the Delphi technique in reporting guidelines is unknown even though the use of the Delphi technique was recommended in the guidance for reporting guidelines. We will assess the quality reports of the Delphi technique or modified Delphi technique in reporting guidelines.METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The present study is a systematic analysis of the EQUATOR Network Library. We will include all reporting guidelines in the EQUATOR Network that used the Delphi technique or modified Delphi technique, published since 1 January 2011 and registered in the EQUATOR on or before 31 May 2018. Our primary outcome is the reporting quality of the Delphi technique, measured by the quality score (each item) in the Delphi technique. We will also examine the relationship between the reporting quality score (each item) of the Delphi technique and year of publication, number of authors, impact factor, sources of funding (industry, non-industry), multiple publications and whether the guidelines are published in open access policy.
    ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval will not be applicable for this study. This protocol has been registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry. We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and may also present them at conferences.
    TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000032685.
    Keywords:  Delphi technique; reporting guidelines; systematic analysis
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024942
  15. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019 Apr;13(Suppl 1): S31-S34
    The STROBE guidelines.
    Sarah Cuschieri.
      An observational study is a type of epidemiological study design, which can take the form of a cohort, a case-control, or a cross-sectional study. When presenting observational studies in manuscripts, an author needs to ascertain a clear presentation of the work and provide the reader with appropriate information to enable critical appraisal of the research. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines were created to aid the author in ensuring high-quality presentation of the conducted observational study. The original articles publishing the STROBE guidelines together with their bibliographies were identified and thoroughly reviewed. These guidelines consist of 22 checklist items that the author needs to fulfil before submitting the manuscript to a journal. The STROBE guidelines were created to aid the authors in presenting their work and not to act as a validation tool for the conducted study or as a framework to conduct an observational study on. The authors complying with these guidelines are more likely to succeed in publishing their observational study work in a journal.
    Keywords:  Data reporting; epidemiology; observational studies; publishing; research design
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_543_18
  16. BMJ Open. 2019 Apr 01. 9(4): e028382
    Disagreements in risk of bias assessment for randomised controlled trials included in more than one Cochrane systematic reviews: a research on research study using cross-sectional design.
    Lorenzo Bertizzolo, Patrick Bossuyt, Ignacio Atal, Philippe Ravaud, Agnes Dechartres.
      OBJECTIVES: Assess the frequency and reasons for disagreements in risk of bias assessments for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) included in more than one Cochrane review.DESIGN: Research on research study, using cross-sectional design.
    DATA SOURCES: 2796 Cochrane reviews published between March 2011 and September 2014.
    DATA SELECTION: RCTs included in more than one review.
    DATA EXTRACTION: Risk of bias assessment and support for judgement for five key risk of bias items.
    DATA SYNTHESIS: For each item, we compared risk of bias assessment made in each review and calculated proportion of agreement. Two reviewers independently analysed 50% of all disagreements by comparing support for each judgement with information from study report to evaluate whether disagreements were related to a difference in information (eg, contact the study author) or a difference in interpretation (same support for judgement but different interpretation). They also identified main reasons for different interpretation.
    RESULTS: 1604 RCTs were included in more than one review. Proportion of agreement ranged from 57% (770/1348 trials) for incomplete outcome data to 81% for random sequence generation (1193/1466). Most common source of disagreement was difference in interpretation of the same information, ranging from 65% (88/136) for random sequence generation to 90% (56/62) for blinding of participants and personnel. Access to different information explained 32/136 (24%) disagreements for random sequence generation and 38/205 (19%) for allocation concealment. Disagreements related to difference in interpretation were frequently related to incomplete or unclear reporting in the study report (83% of disagreements related to different interpretation for random sequence generation).
    CONCLUSIONS: Risk of bias judgements of RCTs included in more than one Cochrane review differed substantially. Most disagreements were related to a difference in interpretation of an incomplete or unclear description in the study report. A clearer guidance on common causes of incomplete information may improve agreement.
    Keywords:  cochrane; interrater agreement; public health; reproducibility; risk of bias; systematic reviews
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028382
  17. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2019 Mar 25.
    Changing trends in otorhinolaryngology publishing.
    K C Kazikdas, M Tanik, A Ural.
      
    Keywords:  Impact factor; Journal metrics; Open access; SCImago journal rank indicator; Scientific publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.14639/0392-100X-2192
  18. JDR Clin Trans Res. 2019 Jan;4(1): 5-8
    Restoring Dignity in Academic Publishing Is a Collective Duty.
    S B Shapiro, E L Franco.
      
    Keywords:  academic performance; electronic publishing; ethics in publishing; open access publishing; peer review; scholarly communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1177/2380084418806839
  19. Acta Med Port. 2019 Mar 29. 32(3): 173-174
    [We Are All 3868].
    Rui Tato Marinho.
      
    Keywords:  Periodicals as Topic; Portugal; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.12021
  20. Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2019 Apr 01. e13277
    Acta Physiologica announces: publishing for nothing, open access for free for all German authors!
    P B Persson.
      Readers and friends of Acta Physiologica. How much has been written about the pros and cons of open access, also with regard to Acta? Like it or not, the future may be open access in one form, or another. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1111/apha.13277
  21. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019 Jan 30. 62(1): 206-209
    Principles and Ethics of Authorship.
    Terry L Wiley.
      Purpose Rules and ethics of authorship for scientific papers are reviewed. Those authorship criteria specific to American Speech-Language-Hearing Association journals are reviewed as well as those required by journals in related fields. Conclusions The importance of first author status for students publishing their doctoral dissertation research is stressed as well as the need to discuss and resolve authorship status for all investigators early in the research process. The authorship criteria for the journal of choice are mandatory, and this necessitates educating all authors regarding the existing requirements.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_JSLHR-H-18-0181
  22. Zhonghua Er Ke Za Zhi. 2019 Apr 02. 57(4): 317
    [Summary to second working meeting of the fifteenth editorial board of Chinese Journal of Pediatrics].
    Y Q Sun, W Li, L Jiang, J Liu, H Bai.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0578-1310.2019.04.020
  23. Acta Med Port. 2019 Mar 29. 32(3): 171-172
    A Vibrant Community of Readers, Authors and Reviewers: A Medical Editors' Necessity and a Challenge for Medical Education.
    Pedro Escada, Helena Donato, Tiago Villanueva.
      
    Keywords:  Periodicals as Topic; Portugal; Publishing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.20344/amp.12020
  24. J Adhes Dent. 2019 ;21(2): 103-104
    Editorial: What is authorship?
    Jorge Perdigão.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a42364
  25. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2019 Mar 30.
    Potential benefit and harm of social media and predatory publishing: a commentary on "Antibiotic-treated acute appendicitis-reception in social media".
    Michael G Sarr, Kevin E Behrns.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-019-01778-x
  26. Cureus. 2019 Jan 24. 11(1): e3953
    Increasing Students' Publication Productivity: Could Launching a University Scientific Journal be a Catalyst?
    Magdalena Pasarica, Monica Bailey, Juan C Cendán.
      Our institution established an online medical journal to promote publication opportunities and to foster a culture of scholarship. In two years of activity, there was an increase in the proportion of students reporting authorship of peer-reviewed publications at our institution suggesting an increase in students' scholarly interest and output.
    Keywords:  evidence-based medicine; innovation; medical student; publications
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.3953
  27. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019 Apr;13(Suppl 1): S35-S41
    How to choose a journal and write a cover letter.
    Duncan Nicholas.
      Selecting a suitable journal for submitting a manuscript can be a complex and confusing task, and end in disappointment when a paper is rejected quickly for reasons that may not be clear to the author. There have been several articles written offering advice on journal selection, but this article is the most thorough of its kind, using recent evidence to inform the strategies presented. This article provides details on the factors involved in optimal journal selection, giving insights into how to identify suitable journals, why particular criteria are important and ideal methods to approach this task. The article also includes a spreadsheet tool for tracking information about potential titles of interest and submission details, and finally, provides notes on supporting your submission with an effective cover letter.
    Keywords:  Journal metrics; journal selection; open access; peer review; publishing ethics; scholarly communication
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_691_18
  28. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019 Apr;13(Suppl 1): S44-S47
    WASP (write a scientific paper): The ethical stages of publishing a research paper.
    Pierre Mallia.
      Background: Authors have to be aware of the ethical stages in writing a scientific paper in order to be cognizant of what is required of them as researchers. The research ethics committee concerns itself with patient protection and therefore looks closely not only at the protocol, but also at the informed consent process and data protection issues. Conversely the publishers has ethical issues of their own relating to their reputation in publishing ethically sound and justified studies.Materials/Methods: The article describes the ethics required of the research by looking at documents and directives which describe the ethical duties of the research, the functions of Research Ethics Committee and Publishing Ethics.
    Results: The Researcher should be familiar with the informed consent process and data protection for research and the requirements of the research ethics committee. The informed consent process involves discussion of the research, the risks, the requirements from the patient/ participant and issues related with data protection. The second stage is that of the research ethics committee. This committee reviews the proposal and protocol of the research and any updates after the research approval. RECs are much concerned with the informed consent process and what is to be said to patients/participants. Any precautions or arrangement for vulnerable groups should be identified. RECs move according to research ethics guidelines and are objective in their response. The final stage is the ethics of publication. The editor of a journal must ensure that ethics review has been made and ascertain as much as possible any conflicting or competing interests on the part of the researcher/s. The issue of identity of reviewers of the paper is also discussed.
    Conclusion: The ethics of publication involves various ethical stages, each having their own responsibility towards patients and the scientific community.
    Keywords:  Data protection; informed consent; publication ethics; publisher; research; research ethics; research ethics committee
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_675_18
  29. Mov Disord Clin Pract. 2019 Mar;6(3): 200-201
    Developing Skills That Serve Our Journal, Your Colleagues as Potential Authors, and You.
    Christopher G Goetz.
      
    Keywords:  peer‐review; review guidelines; reviewers
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.12735
  30. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019 Apr;13(Suppl 1): S18-S19
    How to write introduction and discussion.
    Shaukat Ali Jawaid, Masood Jawaid.
      Scientific writing has a proper format. The anatomical structure or important components of an original article consists of a structured abstract (usually in four sub-headings i.e. objective, methods, results and conclusions with appropriate key words), introduciton, methodology, results and discussion. It is summarized by the acronym IMRAD wherein: I stands for Introduction, M for Methods, R for Results, A for And, D for Discussion. This manuscript describes the information which has to be included in the Introduction and Discussion sections of an original article.
    Keywords:  Discussion; IMRAD; introduction; scientific writing
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_584_18
  31. Saudi J Anaesth. 2019 Apr;13(Suppl 1): S12-S17
    Writing the title and abstract for a research paper: Being concise, precise, and meticulous is the key.
    Milind S Tullu.
      This article deals with formulating a suitable title and an appropriate abstract for an original research paper. The "title" and the "abstract" are the "initial impressions" of a research article, and hence they need to be drafted correctly, accurately, carefully, and meticulously. Often both of these are drafted after the full manuscript is ready. Most readers read only the title and the abstract of a research paper and very few will go on to read the full paper. The title and the abstract are the most important parts of a research paper and should be pleasant to read. The "title" should be descriptive, direct, accurate, appropriate, interesting, concise, precise, unique, and should not be misleading. The "abstract" needs to be simple, specific, clear, unbiased, honest, concise, precise, stand-alone, complete, scholarly, (preferably) structured, and should not be misrepresentative. The abstract should be consistent with the main text of the paper, especially after a revision is made to the paper and should include the key message prominently. It is very important to include the most important words and terms (the "keywords") in the title and the abstract for appropriate indexing purpose and for retrieval from the search engines and scientific databases. Such keywords should be listed after the abstract. One must adhere to the instructions laid down by the target journal with regard to the style and number of words permitted for the title and the abstract.
    Keywords:  Abbreviations; aims; article; author; conclusions; database; indexing; keywords; manuscript; medical writing; message; methods; paper; research; results; summary
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_685_18
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2021‒07‒23 at 10:24:24.